"You can argue that advanced language constructs will make it easier to write correct code to implement data structures, but it's not a magic bullet."

There is nothing advanced about ADTs.

"The Go authors argue that a simple programming language with loops, pointers and arrays is all you need to implement any data structure you need."

It's all about increasing the level of abstraction. There is a reason we don't code in assembly anymore. Of course machine code is all you need to implement any data structure, but how convenient is it?

"I find this a good example of a data structure for which I see little or no benefit in being modeled as an ADTs:"

So you found a single counterexample which (according to you) would not benefit from ADTs.

" On the other hand I don't know about good examples of ADTs used outside of the context of functional programming, do you have some pointers?"

I dislike pointers (a necessary evil if you have mutation I guess...), but here is one example:

data Gender = Male | Female vs type Gender int; const ( Male Gender = iota; Female )

Combine the first with pattern matching and you find yourself in awesomenessland (ie. code becomes readable, type safe).